Defendant appellant challenged concurrent findings decreeing plaintiff's recovery suit for goods supplied on credit. Courts below held debit notes unproved, suit authorized and within limitation. High Court found no substantial question of law and dismissed the regular second appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
********
121
RSA-2303-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision.:18.09.2024
M/s Swa. Exim Pvt. Ltd. …..Appellant Vs. M/s SLDR Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. .….Respondent
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Present:Mr. Shreenath A. Khemka, Advocate for the appellant.
DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
Defendant of the suit is before this court in present RSA against the concurrent findings of the Court below.
NEETIKA TUTEJA 2024.09.19 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RSA-2303-2024 (O&M)
-2-
going through the paper-book, this Court does not find merit in the conten,ons.
“ I have heard rival conten,ons and gone through the record including impugned judgment. It is rightly observed by Ld. Trial Court in para no.11 of the impugned judgment that purchase of goods/material from plain,ff company on credit is admi?ed by defendant. DW-1 has specifically admi?ed during his cross-examina,on that entries of bills ExP-5 to ExP-36 are there is account books of defendant company. In these circumstances, en,re onus was upon defendant company to prove its plea that material was short and not as per specifica,ons and that debit notes issued by defendant were accepted by plain,ff. Ld. Trial Court rightly observed in concluding lines of para no.11 of impugned judgment that en,re onus was upon defendant to show that no liability exists towards defendant regarding payment of suit amount. All the grounds raised by defendant in the present appeal have been well taken up, thoroughly discussed and rightly rejected in the impugned judgment. Ld. Trial Court rightly observed that assuming that all the documents had been lost by DW-1 in the year 2016, it could not be understood as to why those documents were not produced by the defendant at the ,me of filing the wri?en statement. There is also no error in findings of Ld. Trial Court that DW-1 put forth that original debit notes were handed over to plain,ff’s person namely Krishna but he did not know the whereabouts of Krishna and further that he was not in possession of any document to show that Krishna was field representa,ve employee of plain,ff company. In these circumstances, Ld. Trial Court rightly observed that defendant had failed to prove the acceptance of debit notes ExD-3 to ExD-32 by plain,ff company. The suit is also found to have been filed within prescribed period of limita,on. The last bill ExP-36 pertains to date 09- 07-2009 and suit has been filed on 26-02-2011 i.e. within three years from issuance of last bill
NEETIKA TUTEJA 2024.09.19 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RSA-2303-2024 (O&M)
-3-
pertaining to a con,nuous and running account between the par,es. The findings on competency of Parveen Kumar to ins,tute the suit have also been rightly returned by Ld. Trial Court in para no.8 in impugned judgment. To sum up, defendant failed to prove the only ground pleaded in wri?en statement to resist the claim of recovery raised by plain,ff company, that goods delivered by plain,ff to defendant company were not as per the order. Since defendant failed to discharge the onus that had shi<ed upon it in view of stand taken in wri?en statement, Ld. Trial Court had rightly decreed the suit of plain,ff. Thus, this court does not find any error in the impugned judgment.”
No merits. Dismissed.
( DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE
September 18, 2024 Nee,ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No
NEETIKA TUTEJA 2024.09.19 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
3 issues framed by the court
Was the suit filed by a duly authorized person of the plaintiff company?
Were the debit notes issued by the defendant accepted by the plaintiff?
Was the recovery suit filed within the prescribed period of limitation?
M/s Swa. Exim Pvt. Ltd.
M/s SLDR Fabrics Pvt. Ltd.
Deepak Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
